The Work Never Ends at the Ministry of Social Engineering and Government Protection

The Ministry of Social Engineering and Government Protection is my new name for the Supreme Court of Canada. I think it more appropriate to think of them as deputy Ministers rather than Justices or Jesters of the Court. Like medieval times when the clergy were the only literate people in the kingdom; the scholars of the time who saw to the administration of the realm. Like their predecessors of old the Ministers of the SE&GP have a real sweet deal they have complete autonomous control over a branch of the Government; they have tenure for life (or age 75 which ever comes first); they can't be sacked; they have more power than the elected members of Parliament; can blame Parliament or protect parliament depending on the current agenda; strike down statutes and law(not even the queen does that these days) for a whopping 300-350k per year with a obese pension; come to think of it they have a sweeter deal.

There is a pesky myth today; that people are entitled to a day in court and a right to appeal to the highest court; nonsense!!!!! That would mean they have an entitlement to justice; as anyone who follows the goings on in our "legal system" would know there is no justice. Except where there are a few fossil judges or rebels that roil against this mockery and try to fight the system from within but they are far and few between and actually they are dying out relegated to serve out their tenure on the same bench in the same court probably in an obscure place never seeing elevation or promotion. I digress

The minister of the SE&GP are nine in total with power greater than a Queen. Set for life they are free to social engineer to their hearts content all under the guise of being judicial and official. They can even ignore their own decisions of previous rulings when deciding a matter before them either citing a unique situation(even though circumstances and points of law are very similar) or cite "community values being the tipping point of their decision. Abortion is one of the most famous rulings where security of the person was paramount despite deep division in the Canadian communities on the subject.

Freedom of speech is another right protected by the charter. Before the charter it was already a right at common law limited to what the law would allow; one could not use this right to incite the peace to be broken or used to commit fraud; criminal behaviour is never protected and slander and libel offend ones right to their reputation and good name. However I must stress that not everything the government says is criminal is unlawful. The Criminal Code of Canada has a few statutes in it that are aimed at personal pass times "victim-less" crimes. The struggle between classes of people is a political struggle and no where is it written that anyone has a right not to be offended by what some one says. Yet the hate speech statute is used regularly to attack political opponents or people that disagree with the current status quo. Our loving SE&GP has upheld this statute silencing debate on any controversial

We as Canadians and Subjects of the Crown have a right to have and carry arms for our defence. Unlike abortion no one has to stretch the meaning of a Charter right; no this right is plainly written albeit in Middle English and forms part of an unalterable part of the Constitution. I say unalterable mainly because you cannot turn one part of the Constitution on another, nor can you remove without the approval of the Provinces apart from Quebec and Ontario I would say that the other 8 provinces' Governments would be committing political suicide so agreement would be slim. As it stands the English Bill of Rights operates in full vigour in Canada.

Indeed; when the Ministry of Social Engineering and Government Protection says it does when it is trying to protect the Government as in Ref: Canada Constitutional Act and in Aurthurson when the Government is taking money away from a Veteran. However when it suits them it all of a sudden disappears as in Hasselwander which was a case involving firearms. Suddenly the Bill of Rights is meaningless. This is where they become the ever vigilant social engineers denying Canadians their right to have arms in their defence.

Two more cases involving a challenge to the firearms act(a statute not law) didn't even make it to the high court both their application for leave to appeal were dismissed without reason. Part of the quorum was the appeal Jester from Ontario that had given short shrift of the first case Montague at the first appeal and he got a second whack at someone challenging the firearms act in Hudson which involves the fundamental right to have a fair hearing before seized property could be destroyed by the Crown (a shotgun) even though this firearm was seized without charge or any criminal proceedings what ever against Dr Hudson. If either of these cases had made it to the high court it would have been news and it would brought national attention to a topic that neither the Government nor the Social Engineers in fancy dress want Canadians to know about.

I know some people would argue this on two points that A. There is no place in civil society for guns and B. We would be just like the Americans. To the first proposition I would ask: What do you think keeps society civil? Greater men than I have written volumes on the subject one in particular is Sir William Blackstone who stated that your rights would be in vain if not for this right. That you would be putting a great deal of trust in people that should not be trusted (both the Crown and Parliament) this right is the last line of defence of your rights and your freedom. The Government did not grant you your right in the first place they are not theirs to take; in truth as subjects of the Crown you were born with them.

But not according to our un-elected Ministers at Social Engineering. We have been told our rights are limited and not absolute. REALLY! Then how is it they are called rights? The Government can not give what they do not possess that is a maxim at law; no one can give what they do not have. If you have no authority you cannot give authority; if you have no rights you cannot give rights; the converse is also true you cannot take what is not yours; that is called theft. It is also called fraud when you intentionally mislead someone.

The English Parliament placed a limit on the powers of the crown. It stated categorically what the crown shall not do. It is also equally true that the House of Commons is the voice and will of the people; they took up the mantle of protecting the rights of the common people. However the Ministry of Social Engineering is of the belief that they are even supreme over Parliament they re-write statutes all the time they interpret the Charter and decide what are Canadian values; they alone have seized this authority. So like King John the first "the law is in their mouth"

I have heard it said in the media and by other commentators that Harper will remake Canada. The Ministry of Social Engineering and Government Protection has a 30 year head start on him and the ability to re-write what ever he does so how could that statement ever be true? The supreme court is far more scarier and powerful than Harper could ever be; they smile and sweetly pronounce their decisions dressed up in fine words. They not Harper will the death of freedom and democracy.

The Regressive Progressive

Call me strange but I happen to be a person that sees progress as having more than what you started with. Before the wheel we got every where by shank's mare (on your own feet) The wheel meant we could now ride every where or at least not have to carry everything on our backs. Domestication of animals meant we had beast power instead of man power.

As you can see with every bit of progress we gained something we did not have before. In fact we have a great deal more than we ever did. While we did loose on the physical activity end of it. We gained in the fact we didn't work ourselves to early permanent retirement(death).

We at one time were a civilization organized into what is known as feudalism. Simply put we lived on land that a powerful lord owned. We paid rent to him which was a portion of our labour and or military service. Lest we be kicked off his land. The Lordship had last word on everything, while he didn't sully himself with our day to day lives if he caught wind of something that could directly affect his income or ability to field a regiment of men at arms he would have his men put a stop to it.

For the most part that is ancient history we discovered Constitutional democracy. We decided that their ought to be limits on what the powers that be could do. There were these fellows in the early days before the idea of Constitutional democracy, they were a radical bunch, they had the nerve to think people ought to get paid for a days work and individuals had rights. They were the progressives of their time they were radical in their beliefs.

Imagine rights for common people! That was enough to get a person hung back then, no member of the aristocracy wanted one of these radicals in their town. They would make people discontented with the order of things...Rights for common people how absurd.

The idea of rights and freedom caught on like a house on fire, there was no putting that genie back in the bottle. The tighter the tyrants squeezed the more people slipped through their fingers. Freedom came at a very high cost in some lands. People died for it.

Today in our century progressive liberals are common place, sadly they are not what they used to be. Today their idea of progress is to take away freedom and democracy, the common people are just too common to enjoy it. They over indulge in food and drink, they waste their money on frivolities. They indulge in unhealthy things and become burdensome to others. So our once libertine philosophers that fought for the common man, have turned over a new leaf. They now lobby for restrictive laws to limit our freedom and try to stack democratic governments to favour them.

It would appear that our erstwhile liberators have decided that they know what is best for us, and have become the feudal lords. While they won't evict you from your home directly they will tax you out of it. They have even bandied about the idea of taking away your health care if you do things they disapprove of, like smoke tobacco or eat too many burgers.

It is a sad day indeed, for it seems that progress today is to regress to yesterday.

Ivison: Ontario is becoming an increasingly Orwellian province

John Ivison, National Post Published: Friday, January 09, 2009

Jana Chytilova for National Post

It seems positively Orwellian that a private conversation in a bar can be taken down surreptitiously by a third party and used as evidence in a quasi-judicial hearing -- but that is the reality of life in a province that is under increasingly intrusive surveillance.

Readers with long memories may remember that a group of journalists was booted unceremoniously from the popular downtown Ottawa watering hole D'Arcy McGee's on a quiet Monday night last February. There was no warning, no incident -- just no more beer.

It turned out a liquor inspector working for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario had satisfied himself that the revellers were intoxicated and told the bar's manager that he was filing a report that would put D'Arcy's liquor license in jeopardy -- hence the beer yanked from the hot, clammy hand of one of my bemused colleagues.

The report was filed in the fall and D'Arcy's decided to contest its findings. As the bar's manager, Kevin Ferby, told me at the time, he felt the inspector was "overzealous" and had "overreacted". "The law is there to protect extremes and there were no extremes here," he said.

I was called as a witness this week at a hearing in front of two members of the board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission -- and the experience was surreal. The AGCO is a unique organization, in that it decides who gets a liquor license, then enforces their operation through liquor inspectors. If the organization decides to proceed with charges, the AGCO appoints legal counsel and the case is heard by two AGCO board members. Theoretically, each stage of the process is independent of the other, though defendents say the cards are often stacked against them.

It gets worse -- unlike a criminal court, where the prosecution has to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to a high evidentiary standard, at an AGCO hearing, the burden of proof is much lower -- on the balance of probability -- as is an evidentiary standard that allows the use of hearsay.

In the D'Arcy's case, the prosecuting lawyer cited the Post article, in which I had described members of our band as being "moist and garrulous" , if not quite "tired and emotional", as an admission that we were all intoxicated -- which is an offence under the Liquor License Act. I conceded that we were in high spirits but rejected the notion of intoxication, which according to the Ministry of Government Services' own server training program means the customer is speaking too loudly, slurring, sweating and losing balance.

"You had to repeat yourself several times, did you not?" the lawyer asked.

"Yes but that happens all the time. You might have noticed I have the hint of an accent," I replied, in my strongest west Scotland brogue.

By this time things had proceeded from farce, as the lawyer flailed away in her attempts to make me admit we were all full of loudmouth soup, or something more sinister.

"As regards the subject of your conversation, is it possible the conversation was of a sexual nature?" the lawyer asked.

"Excuse me," I replied, taken aback.

"Is it possible the conversation was of a sexual nature?"

"I have no idea."

"Is it possible?"

"I have no idea. Is this relevant?" I asked.

"Your job here is to answer the questions. I will do the asking," she said, curtly.

So there you have it. It seems that not only was a public servant sitting in the shadows studying us, he was also eavesdropping on our conversation, so that he could include its contents in a report that could become a public document once the board members pronounce on whether D'Arcy's was in breach of its licence.

I have no idea whether I am identified by name or the precise nature of the allegation -- I wasn't allowed to listen to the inspector's testimony.

What is clear is that Ontario's beer police are running amok -- the number of licence suspensions has increased more than 60% in the province over the course of this decade. I was inundated with anecdotes to this effect from readers after the last article. Take the case of the Ottawa bar where a server refused a clearly inebriated customer, only for an inspector to pop up and tell her the man was now her responsibility and she was obliged to either escort him home or sober him up with a free meal.

Bad enough that a public employee, who is apparently unaccountable to the people, can temporarily close down a wealth-creating private business like D'Arcy's, which employs 75 people, on the extremely subjective basis that a couple of 40-something suits "appeared to be intoxicated". Much worse that government is encroaching on the rights of the individual to the extent that a supposedly private conversation becomes a matter of public record. The Ministry of Truth would have approved.

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

Well there you go ..a few journalists and some beer and whamo ,,, the sad truth is this is what has happened in this province. Never fear Nanny will get to in the end. Welcome to Mr McGuinty's Ontario. Where individual rights mean nothing. The fortunate part is this wee Beer commiczar decided to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Now that he personaly has tasted the sting of the Government, maybe now he will take notice that his individual rights have been thrown under the bus for the " Greater Good ". Though his article is a good start but it is a far cry from becoming the voice of Freedom. If he thinks his privacy has been invaded? He ought to try being a Firearms owner then you become familiar with true statism at its worst.